SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER H S E B Vs. TEXPORT FASHION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana State Electricity Board has come up in appeal against the order dated 23.5.1996 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon, whereby complaint of M/s. Texport Fashion of Gurgaon alleging deficiency in service against the HSEB and challenging the non- extension of load has been allowed.

(2.) The complainant had approached the learned District Forum with the grievance that he was consumer of electricity vide Account No. AMS-313 with connected load of 69.7 KW. Since he required more energy for his factory for running the new motors and machinery etc. he applied for the extension of load from 69.7 KW. to 205.712 KW, but this was not done despite repeated reminders. On the other hand, he suddenly received a notice demanding payment of Rs.1,97,200/- as penalty assessed for six months since he was found using the unauthorised load. As the payment was not made, the electricity supply was disconnected without any further notice. In reply, the HSEB pleaded that no doubt the complainant had applied for extension of load but before it could be sanctioned the complainant himself installed heavy machinery and connected the same with the system of the board. When his premises were inspected on 27.1.1995 by a Senior Officer of the HSEB, i. e. the Executive Engineer (Works) of the office of the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Gurgaon, it was found that the load had already been connected to the board system to the extent of 189.14 KW against the sanctioned load of 69.7 KW. It was on that basis that the penalty was assessed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the HSEB at the rate of Rs.200/- per BHP for a period of 6 months, which amounted to Rs.97,200/-. The learned District Forum, after examining the evidence produced by the parties, came to the conclusion that since the Superintending Engineer had granted the sanction of extension of load on 24.1.1995, the checking conducted by the Executive Engineer three days later on 27.1.1995 could not be made the basis for the imposition of penalty. In any case, according to the learned District Forum, as the electricity supply was disconnected without any notice, the complaint was accepted.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the HSEB had vehemently contended that the impugned order was wholly arbitrary and contrary to record. Our attention has been invited to para 4 of the complaint in which the complainant had himself stated : "that the respondent/opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant bearing Memo No.427 dated 31.1.1995 and delivered on the complaint on 3.2.1995 vide which it has been advised to the complainant that his premises were checked by the Executive Engineer (Works) on 27.1.1995 and the connected load was found to be 189.140 KW. Thus, unauthorised load was found as 119.410kw. The complainant by this notice has been ordered to pay a huge amount of Rs.1,97,200/- as penalty for six months within 48 hours of the receipt of the notice failing which it has been threatened that the electricity supply would be disconnected". It is evident from the aforesaid averment in the complaint itself that electricity supply was not disconnected immediately on the issuance of the notice but after the expiry of the period stipulated for its payment. Thus, the allegation regarding the disconnection of the supply without notice is wholly without any basis.